Luff-Pycroft v The Queen

[2012] NZCA 2

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA19/2012
[2012] NZCA 2

BETWEEN  SHAUN THOMAS LAWERENCE LUFF-PYCROFT
Appellant

AND  THE QUEEN
Respondent

Counsel:         P Keegan for Appellant
B Charmley for Respondent

Judgment:      31 January 2012 at 2.15 pm

(On the papers)

BAIL JUDGMENT OF HARRISON J

The application for bail is dismissed.

REASONS

1. The appellant, Shaun Luff-Pycroft, pleaded guilty in the District Court at New Plymouth to one charge of injuring with intent to injure and two charges of assault with intent to injure.  On 9 December 2011 he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. 

2. Mr Luff-Pycroft has appealed to this Court against his sentence and has applied for bail pending the determination of his appeal against sentence, pursuant to s 70 of the Bail Act 2000.  The Crown opposes.  I have personally considered the application pursuant to s 393(2)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961. 

3. The test to be applied on Mr Luff-Pycroft’s application for bail is set out in s 14 of the Bail Act.  Two requirements are particularly relevant under that provision:  first, bail is not to be granted unless the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it would be in the interest of justice in this case to do so; and, second, Mr Luff-Pycroft carries the onus of showing cause why bail should be granted. 

4. Mr Keegan, who appears for Mr Luff-Pycroft, has not satisfied me that the interests of justice require that bail be granted.  He raises two inter-related grounds of appeal that the sentencing Judge erred, first, in adopting a starting point which was too high, and second, in declining to impose an alternative sentence of home detention.  Mr Keegan also relies upon the fact that there may be a significant delay until the substantive appeal is heard, thus rendering the appeal itself largely nugatory. 

5. Without going into the substantive merits, I agree with Ms Charmley for the Crown that Mr Luff-Pycroft’s grounds of appeal are not on their face so sufficiently compelling as to render unjust Mr Luff-Pycroft’s continued detention pending appeal.  In this respect, I note that in accordance with authority in this Court the sentencing Judge took into account a number of factors when evaluating whether a sentence of home detention might be appropriate, in particular, the seriousness and repetition of the offending, and the importance of deterrence and denunciation. 

6. Mr Luff-Pycroft’s application for grant of bail is dismissed.

7. The Registry is directed to allocate a fixture for determination of this appeal as soon as possible, if necessary on a standby basis. 

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington, for Respondent